http://www.pfie.com © Reproduced by Thomson Reuters 2011 Hudson Transmission

Powering the Hudson

n May 23 2011, Hudson Transmission – Siemens and Prysmian (formerly Pirelli) – as Neptune, Partners, with sponsors Energy Hudson as well as the management team that will be imple- Investors Funds and Starwood Energy Transmission menting its development, construction and operation, Ed Group , successfully closed a US$716.5m Partners is Stern and his management team at PowerBridge LLC, O senior secured private placement which over the past few years has successfully man- financing in the institutional investor building on aged the development, construction and operation of Nep- market to support the construction of a 660MW high volt- tune. age direct current transmission system. The project the success of Once completed, the Hudson transmission project involves a submarine transmission line under the Hud- Neptune will provide several benefits to the New York and New Jer- son River interconnecting Public Service Electric and Gas sey transmission systems as well as to the region gener- Company’s Bergen substation in Ridgefield, New Jer- Regional ally. The benefits include providing a much-needed link sey, with at Compa- Transmission between the NYISO and PJM transmission systems, which ny’s West 49th Street substation, a few blocks from will enhance the security and reliability of both and Times Square. to bring reduce transmission constraints. Involving project costs of approximately US$850m additional It will also create a pathway for New York customers and a completion date in 2013, the successful closing and to PJM’s more diverse fleet of energy resources – com- initial funding of the financing is the culmination of a electricity to pared with New York City’s Zone J which is limited to oil process more than six years in the making by the spon- New York and natural gas, PJM has a variety of coal, nuclear, solar, sors involved. The project began in 2005 when Hudson wind and other renewable resources (and is planning to responded to a request for proposals from the New York City. By bring online additional renewable resources in the near Power Authority , which had requested 500MW of new Daniel future). power capacity for New York. Energy cost savings are also a benefit of the project. Although the project has been in progress for several Michalchuk, Although estimates vary, it is thought that Hudson will years, the financing process began and ended in a suc- senior result in long-term energy cost savings to New York City cessful closing and funding in a very short period of time and New York State residents in the range of – lasting only a few months from start to finish. This was associate at US$1bn–$2bn over 20 years, as traditionally day-ahead largely due to the sponsors and placement agents capi- Milbank energy prices in PJM are lower than Zone J prices in New talising on the fact that the Hudson Transmission Proj- York City. ect features a number of similarities with the highly Tweed In addition to these benefits is of course the most successful Neptune Regional Transmission Project, which Hadley & obvious one cited by proponents of the Hudson project was closed and funded in 2005 and was completed on – that, with the impending closure of several ageing time and on budget. McCloy LLP. power projects that currently deliver power to New Hudson involves the same HVDC technology and York City and the lack of sufficient new sources of elec- 345kV alternating current transmission line as Neptune. tricity, the Hudson transmission project will provide In addition to technical similarities, Hudson is also com- the additional power that New York City needs. This need parable to Neptune in terms of the project counterpar- for replacement sources of power has become even ties involved: Hudson features the same EPC contractors more pressing with recent discussions involving the © Reproduced by Thomson Reuters 2011 http://www.pfie.com Hudson Transmission

possible decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear Similar to the Neptune Regional Transmission Project, reactor north of New York City. the terms, conditions and pricing of the core revenue con- Although the financing was closed and funded quick- tract with NYPA – the FTCPA – which was awarded by NYPA ly, and the sponsors have now started construction of the in connection with Hudson winning the RFP, and signed project, the period since the 2005 NYPA RFP has been a just prior to closing of the financing, was key to securing long one, and was marked by continued discussions investor confidence in the project and the financing. with NYPA over the structure and pricing of the deal, as Under the FTCPA, NYPA pays capacity payments to Hud- well as discussion and debate on the political level involv- son, for a term of 20 years, in respect of 75% of the Hud- ing officials ranging from the office of the mayor of son project’s available transmission capacity from PJM to New York City, to the New York governor, and local New York City. Payments from NYPA under the FTCPA are New York politicians. on a take-or-pay basis, and begin upon the commercial As to discussions with NYPA, negotiations between the operation of the project. These capacity payments are suf- City of New York and NYPA were ongoing into 2011. These ficient to service Hudson’s debt on their own, but Hud- continued until March 2011, when an expected vote by son is also able to sell the remaining 25% of its available the trustees of NYPA was postponed, only to be approved capacity on a merchant basis. Under certain circum- in early April due to the involvement of a newly-appoint- stances, these additional revenues are to be applied to ed NYPA trustee with the strong support of New York gov- reduce the principal amount of the institutional loans. ernor Andrew M Cuomo and last-minute negotiations The strength of the construction arrangements and with NYPA. With agreement on the final terms of the actors involved was also responsible for the enthusiasm FTCPA in hand, the sponsors were able to move quickly Both that the institutional investor market had for the trans- towards closing the transaction. action. The construction of the project is governed by an Indeed, support from the governor’s office, as well as contractors engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) con- from the mayor of New York City, were crucial for the tract with Siemens Energy Inc and Prysmian (formerly project. The Hudson project has, from its inception, are Pirelli) Power Cable and Systems USA – with both enti- been strongly supported by the City of New York and by ties acting jointly and severally as EPC contractor. the governor of New York. Securing additional sources supported Both contractors are supported by parent guarantees. of electricity for New York City has long been a focus of by parent The EPC contract is fully wrapped, with the fixed price the mayor of New York City and has also been an empha- and guaranteed completion dates customary in the proj- sis of New York governor Mario M Cuomo. The project also guarantees. ect financing market. On financial close of the project, has had consistent support from ConEd , PJM and PSEG . Hudson issued a notice to proceed to the EPC contractors Although supported by New York City and the New to start construction as soon as possible. York governor’s office, and by the utilities noted, the proj- The timing of financial close had been a consistent ect has also had its critics. It has faced opposition by cer- point of focus and a priority during the financing process tain state politicians in upstate New York, who have – in order to comply with permits structured around argued that the firm transmission capacity purchase marine ecology concerns, financial close and initial dis- agreement (FTCPA) with NYPA is uneconomic, and that bursement needed to occur prior to the summer in the project will serve to increase pollution due to the num- order to allow the marine installation of buried cable ber of coal-fired power plants in operation in PJM between June and November 2011. With the financing (although the technology of the transmission line itself closed as of the end of the May, the sponsors are confi- was not challenged for environmental reasons). dent that this schedule can now be met. Opposition also came from certain New York power pro- Following completion, the day-to-day operations of ducers that were concerned about the effect the transmis- the project will be handled by an experienced team at sion project would have on electricity prices in New York. Siemens, which will build on its successful operation of Notwithstanding this opposition, the sponsor team suc- the Neptune project as well as its familiarity with the proj- cessfully obtained all local, regional and federal approvals nec- ect as EPC contractor (a model also shared with Neptune). essary at closing for the development and construction of the Overall management of the project will be undertaken project (which included securing a complicated mosaic of by PowerBridge (as with Neptune). Certain operating and local permits and real estate rights necessary to ensure that repair facilities will also be shared between Hudson and the transmission line could be run from its origins in New Neptune, which will increase efficiencies for and syner- Jersey, across the , into New York City). gies between both projects. At the end of the process and notwithstanding some To attract investors and to close the financing as quick- bumps in the road, the sponsors were able to build on the ly as possible – indeed many of the investors participat- strength of the project contracts as well as the technol- ing in the Hudson financing are also in the Neptune deal ogy and reliability of the project itself to win over insti- – the sponsors and financial advisers structured the tutional investors. financing in a similar way to Neptune, but with appro- http://www.pfie.com © Reproduced by Thomson Reuters 2011 The timing of financial close had been a consistent point of focus

priate changes necessary to fit the unique characteristics ments of a construction financing with delayed draws. Pri- of the Hudson project. vate placement facility proceeds are funded by the insti- The financing consists of a US$691m private placement tutional lenders in seven instalments based on a facility that was sold to institutional investors in the pri- pre-determined disbursement schedule. Once disbursed, vate placement market and a US25.5m letter of credit they are fully amortising. facility provided by Société Générale as issuing bank. The final maturity date of the private placement facil- The proceeds of the private placement facility are to be ity is just over 22 years following the closing date, includ- used for two purposes. Proceeds will be applied to sup- ing a construction period of approximately 27 months. port the construction of the transmission system and will The maturity of the letter of credit facility matches that also be used to support certain interconnection upgrade of the private placement facility. The notes issued under costs of approximately US$200m (the vast majority of the private placement facility were rated BBB– by Fitch. which will be undertaken in ). The institutional investor market also took comfort The interconnection upgrade costs are unique to the from a tried-and-true project financing structure. Col- Hudson project (and were not in the Neptune deal as part lateral security was granted to the institutional investors of the financing), and will be reimbursed by the New York over all assets of the project. Construction and operating Power Authority at commercial operation of the trans- costs are paid through a typical project financing account mission system pursuant to the terms of the FTCPA, to waterfall monitored by the independent engineer and be applied to the prepayment of the institutional loans. ongoing covenants, and the institutional loan and L/C facil- The equity contributions to the Hudson financing The final ity (the agreement governing the institutional loans and were also structured in a manner more beneficial to notes) features typical covenants limiting debt, liens, and investors than Neptune – although the Neptune project maturity restricted payments. had required the funding of equity at the end of the con- Although amounts are funded from the private place- struction period (but secured by a letter of credit), in the date of the ment facility into a construction account, the inde- Hudson financing all equity was pre-funded prior to pendent engineer is involved in certifying project progress closing and initial funding, which made it additionally private before amounts are made available from that account for attractive to institutional investors. construction. The proceeds of the letter of credit facility will be placement RBS Securities Inc and SG Americas Securities LLC applied mostly towards debt service reserve require- acted as joint placement agents in connection with the ments, although Hudson also has the ability to utilise the facility is just private placement financing. Milbank Tweed Hadley & letter of credit facility for its general security and col- over 22 McCloy LLP represented the institutional investors, Skad- lateral-posting requirements. den Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Gibson Dunn & The financing successfully combined the benefits of the years. Crutcher LLP, the Dax Law Firm, and Scarinci Hollenbeck private placement market with the customary require- represented Hudson.